GLAST Proposal Review

1
GLAST Large Area Telescope LAT Project
Management William E. Althouse Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center Stanford University LAT
Instrument Project Manager wea_at_slac.stanford.edu
2
LAT Project Management

• Outline
• LAT Project overview scope, schedule
• Participants, WBS, organization, relationships
• Funding
• System engineering, configuration management
• Project management control system description,
  status
• Risk management contingency management
• Major milestones, issues mitigations,
  conclusions

3
Overview
4
LAT Project Scope

• Develop deliver the LAT flight instrument in
  accordance with Collaboration proposal (Nov. 99)
  GLAST Mission level II specs
• Ground support equipment
• Balloon flight test
• Support integration into GLAST observatory
• Support launch, post-launch mission operations
• Develop provide Instrument Operations Center
• Develop provide ground software necessary to
  support the above
• Develop ground software for science data analysis
• Provide management, system engineering, and
  performance safety assurance as required
• Provide E/PO services for GLAST Mission
• Support participate in Mission Operations
  Data Analysis

5
Schedule Overview
Calendar Years
2003
2010
2000
2002
2004
2005
2001
I-CDR (Joint DOE/NASA Review)
Inst. Delivery
Launch
M-CDR
SRR
NAR
PDR
Implementation
Ops.
Formulation
Inst. IT
Build Test Engineering Models
Build Test Flight Units
Inst.-S/C IT
Schedule Reserve
1st Joint DOE/NASA of GLAST LAT
Baseline Review
6
Organization
7
LAT Development Organizations

• California State University at Sonoma (SSU)
• University of California at Santa Cruz - Santa
  Cruz Institute of Particle Physics (UCSC/SCIPP)
• Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique /
  Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de
  Physique des Particules (CNRS/IN2P3)1
• Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique / Direction des
  Sciences de la Matière/ Département
  d'Astrophysique, de physique des Particules, de
  physique Nucléaire et de l'Instrumentation
  Associée (CEA/DSM/DAPNIA)1
• Goddard Space Flight Center Laboratory for High
  Energy Astrophysics (NASA/GSFC/LHEA)
• Hiroshima University2
• Institute for Space and Astronautical Science
  (ISAS)2
• Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN)
• Naval Research Laboratory (NRL)
• RIKEN2
• Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)3
• Stanford University Hanson Experimental Physics
  Laboratory (SU-HEPL)
• Stanford University - Stanford Linear Accelerator
  Center (SU-SLAC)
• Stockholm University3
• Texas AM University Kingsville
• University of Washington 1French Team
• 2Japanese GLAST Collaboration (JGC)
• 3Swedish GLAST Collaboration (SGC)

8
Work Breakdown Structure
9
GLAST LAT Organization
Collaboration Science Team
E/PO L. Cominsky, SSU
Principal Investigator P. Michelson, SU
SSAC N. Gehrels, GSFC
Instrument Scientist S. Ritz, GSFC
Project Manager W. Althouse, SU-SLAC
Instrument Design Team T. Kamae, SU-SLAC
IPO
Project Controls T. Boysen, SU-SLAC
Integration Test M. Nordby, SU-SLAC
Mech. Systems M. Nordby, SU-SLAC
10
Relations between LAT Organizations Technical
direction (deliverables flow oppositely)
DOE/NASA JOG
Relationships established by MoAs IAs
Level I Documents
Level II Documents
NASA/GSFC GLAST Project Office
SU-SLAC IPO
Level III Documents
SU-HEPL IOC Mgr.
SU-SLAC IT Mgr.
UCSC Tkr Mgr.
GSFC/LHEA ACD Mgr.
NRL Cal Mgr.
SU-SLAC SAS Mgr.
SU-SLAC Chief Elec. Engr.
SU-SLAC Mech. Sys. Engr.
KTH Stockholm Univ.
CEA/DAPNIA French Proj. Mgr IN2P3
SU-SLAC Tkr Engr.
JGC Si Det. Mgr. (Hiroshima)
Collaboration Institutions
INFN Labs Italian Proj. Mgr. (Pisa)
UCSC
SU-HEPL
NRL
CEA/DAPNIA (Power Sys)
GSFC/LHEA
SU-SLAC
11
Funding
12
Relations between LAT Organizations Funding
Japan
Sweden
Italy
France
U.S.A.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science,
Technology
DOE
KEK (US-Japan)
SU
SLAC
IPO
JGC
ISAS
Hiroshima University
RIKEN Institute
UCSC
HEPL
SSU
13
LAT WBS 4.1 Funding
Total 158.2M
14
LAT WBS 4.1 Funding
15
System Engineering
16
System Engineering

• System trade studies
• Decomposition and validation of requirements
• LAT System and Subsystem Requirements
• Subsystem Interface Control Documents (ICDs)
• Technical risk assessment
• Parts and materials planning, qualification,
  listing
• FMECA, fault tree analysis
• Design integration and verification
• Support Instrument/Observatory ICD development
• Coordination with spacecraft contractor
• Supported by IDT

17
LAT Trade Studies

• Many studies complete prior to Nov. 99 proposal
  (S. Ritz presentation)
• Studies completed since selection
• Tracker SSD size, pitch ? instrument footprint,
  mass
• SSD spec finalized, prototypes made and evaluated
• Tracker radiator thickness distribution
• Grid material Al vs. CFC
• Aluminum selected
• To be resolved
• ACD segmentation
• Optimize number of on-board processors
• Optimize science during intense solar flares
• Optimize IT, calibration and verification
  testing plans
• System Engineer supports subsystem internal trade
  studies

18
LAT Specification Tree

• Level II(b) specsderived from II(a)
• LAT Performance Specs collect all applicable
  Level IIrequirements into one place

19
Configuration Management

• All project documentation stored in central
  database, with individual controlled access via
  WWW
• Configuration Item List maintained by LAT
  Document Librarian
• Single Document Change Notice (DCN) form for
  initial release to configuration control
  (technical baseline), and to record changes
  includes provision for red-line markups
• Subsystem managers approve majority of changes
  (detailed specifications, drawings)
• LAT CCB approves changes to level III
  documents/baselines

20
Integrated PMCS
DOE/NASA funded elements only

• Copy of SLAC systems for PEP II, BaBar, SPEAR
  III

21
PMCS A Work in Progress

• Developing WBS and WBS dictionary
• Developing bottoms-up cost estimate
• Performing systematic contingency analysis
• Primavera P3
• Developing resource loaded schedules
• Identifying key milestones, external links (held
  in PM WBS)
• Developing accounting interfaces
• Development toward baseline
• All inputs due in March
• First process cycle in April
• Stability by June
• Budget and schedule baselines ready in July

22
Status of PMCS Inputs
23
4.1 GLAST LAT PROJECT
24
4.1 GLAST LAT PROJECT
INCOMPLETE
25
Risk Management
26
Risk Management

• Risk management tools
• Risk identification management risk reduction
  planning
• Performance metrics
• Contingency (reserve/margin) management
• Single interface at DOE, NASA, IPO for all
  requirements
• Weekly telecon meetings
• Thorough validation verification processes

27
Risk Reduction Planning

• Use of engineering models to minimize activities
  in series with instrument integration, test and
  delivery schedule
• Grid engineering model and instrument thermal
  model permit independent testing of flight
  radiators
• Electronics EMs to permit early flight software
  verification, support beam test calibration
  activities
• Tracker, Calorimeter and ACD EMs to support early
  flight software verification, support equipment
  and test software/procedure verification
• ACD EM to support beam test calibration
• SSD trade study balanced margins for
• Science requirements
• Mass ? instrument footprint ? SSD size
• Power ? number of signal channels ? SSD strip
  pitch
• Considering construction of thermal vacuum test
  facility at SLAC to reduce risk of dependence on
  off-site facilities
• Study team to develop calibration plan, IT
  strategies

28
Technical Performance Metrics
29
Instrument Mass
30
Instrument Power
31
LAT DOE NASA Cost
32
Major Milestones, Issues, Conclusions
33
LAT Project Milestones

• Instrument System Requirements Review (SRR)
  9/28/00 (C)
• LAT Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
  8/6/01
• LAT Critical Design Review (CDR) 8/5/02
• Subsystems deliveries for beam test calibrations
  5/15/03-8/1/03
• Calibration unit ready for beam tests 9/1/03
• Subsystem deliveries for instrument IT
  10/1/03-12/24/03
• Calibration activities complete
  1/26/04
• Flight hardware delivered to LAT integration
• LAT ready for environmental testing 4/9/04
• LAT Pre-Ship Review (PSR) 10/7/04
• LAT ready for integration with Observatory
  12/22/04
• GLAST launch 9/05

34
Project Issues and Mitigations

• International commitments
• Aggressively working to get signed MoAs and
  International Agreements
• DOE/NASA Implementing Arrangement
• Working to facilitate agreement
• Flight software development
• Aggressively recruiting additional manpower
• Balloon flight schedule
• Working to reduce conflicting demands on shared
  personnel
• Lack of SLAC on-site space experienced EEE parts
  engineer
• Seeking local contractor help
• Use of off-site environmental test facilities
• Proposed on-site thermal vacuum test facility
• Inadequate reserves to deal with significant
  budget/schedule hiccups by any major sponsor

35
Project Managers Conclusions

• We have developed the organization to do the job
• We have identified and are strengthening weak
  spots
• Technical design was very mature at start of
  Formulation Phase
• We are focusing on developing a sound project
  basis
• Project is schedule driven, compressed between
  availability of funding and launch
• After assuring performance and safety, tracking
  and controlling schedule progress is paramount
• Combined DOE, NASA and other domestic and foreign
  partner resources make the ambitious LAT goals
  possible
• Dont go to launch pad with our fingers crossed
• Do the necessary planning, finish design and fab
  as early as prudent, to leave maximum time for
  testing
• Test thoroughly to develop confidence